Monday, November 12, 2007

Rape and Cameron

Tougher sentencing for rapists may be needed to tackle the "moral collapse" demonstrated by the belief of young men that it is sometimes acceptable to force a woman to have sex, David Cameron will warn today....

Cameron will say today: "Studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it's OK to force a woman to have sex. This is an example of moral collapse."

OK, yes, this is indeed a worrying statistic but where on earth does it come from. I don't think that I know anyone who thinks that is it acceptable to force a woman to have sex, so there much be vast swathes of the country where everybody thinks that this is acceptable! A moral collapse indeed.

And I don't really have a problem with harsher sentences for those convicted of rape either: it's a fucking shitty crime and those who are convicted should be severely punished.

The Tory leader will highlight the growing "justice gap" which sees only 5.7% of prosecutions result in a conviction.

Erm... OK, Dave, you fucking cock, what is the "correct" level of convictions? As we keep on saying, rape, by its very nature, tends to be something of a difficult one to convict on and in this country we still—just about—have this quaint old notion a presumption of innocence.

Are you planning to overturn that?

Experts agree that the extent of the problem is even greater because only 25% of sexually assaulted women report cases to the police...

Well, I am very sorry about that, but I am afraid that if the women do not report the crime then there is no way that anyone can be fucking prosecuted for it, is there?

... and many of those incidents which are reported do not reach court, according to the British crime survey.

Oh? And why is that?

Explanations range from the prejudices of juries to the failure of police and prosecutors to follow Home Office guidelines. A report published this year by the independent watchdogs for the services found they were regularly failing victims by wrongly recording cases as "no crime" and dropping others prematurely without following possible lines of investigation.

Ah, right: so it's a fucking failure by inefficient, crap government services. Why am I not surprised?

Yes, rape is a terrible crime but you cannot simply set a target for the proportion of convictions. If you are going to do that, you might as well just drop that tremendously expensive trial and just get the accused to draw fucking lots.

And might I also suggest that the supposed 75% of women who are suffering a sexual assault actually fucking report it?

The reason that the conviction rate is so low is that the definition of rape has broadened to the extent that it is now primarily so-called date rape. In these cases, the fact of sexual intercourse is not denied—what is at issue is whether there was consent.

In the majority of these cases, the only evidence is the word of the protagonists—'he said, she said'. In order for more of these cases to get a conviction, either the burden of proof must be reversed, or the weight of proof must be lowered. Neither would be just. Cameron calls further for longer sentences for rapists, and there can be little opposition to this. Except that the current length of sentence—life imprisonment being available to the judge—is one of the factors that make it less likely that a 'date rapist' will be convicted at all. Either the Conservatives have to push for a division between 'stranger rape' and 'date rape'—and there isn't much philosophical merit in that, both are a violation and a breach of trust—or accept that in cases where there is no solid evidence, juries are unlikely to convict.

It is a difficult offence to prove: trite and tragic but unfortunately true.

35 comments:

Hmm, I take your points DK, but when the conviction level for rape is something like 6% it looks like sommat's a bit shady, no? I've no idea off the top of my head (apols - would check but running late) what the rate is for other crimes, but if it is significantly lower, then then one could make the case that either:

(a) women are lying about rape, although in spite of the frothings of the Daily Mail there is no evidence to suggest that false reporting of rape is different to any other crime (I think, around 2% although I'll have to check); or(b) something is going wrong with the way in which rape is treated by the criminal justice system.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that there is a "correct level" of convictions - merely that when the figure for rape is so much lower than comparable crimes, it's a indication that something might be a bit wrong.

Please don't call me a cunt if you can manage it - I'm having one of those mornings.

Many rapists no doubt get off, which is a tragedy, but we're in danger of forgetting the presumption of innocence, which must be paramount in a legal system. If only there could be another way, but there isn't.

I would anticipate that the reason most women don't bother is that most rapists are people known to the victim so it would be very difficult to prove, they don't have much faith in the system and they don't want some barrister making her out to be a slag.

Most people, who would of course make up the jury, think that if a women knows the person, went out with them, was going out with them, was wearing matching underwear, had had a drink somehow are 'asking for it' and the poor chap was just confused.

I think that if the punishment was todger chopping that might be a way to cut the crime, as it were.

We all know that Cameron, like every other politician in our disgustingly corrupt system, will say whatever he thinks will get him elected, regardless of its idiocy or contravention of the most basic principles of justice or logic. Since the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' no longer actually exists under our brave new EU laws, I agree that a lottery system would probably be as effective. Or perhaps a quota of people who just 'don't look right' (probably white, English, 30's to 40's males would do) could be culled once a month by our excellent political police 'service'? If you don't believe there are vast swathes of the EU province formerly known as Britain where there has been a total moral collapse, I implore you and anyone else who cares to read Theodore Dalrymple's 'Our Culture - What's Left of It'. Some of the stories he tells, from personal experience working as a doctor in prisons and hospitals, make your blood run cold.Mr. Hughes

DK, I live at the opposite end of the country, and I agree I don't know anyone who thinks it's ok to force a woman to have sex against her will, it must be a strong concentration in the Midlands, Wales or Norfolk that make up the numbers.

Devil - I would have thought the "correct" level of convictions simply equates to a prosecution each time a crime has been perpetrated ?

The stats highlighted in you post indicate that some 94.4% of rapists, sorry, ex-boyfriends, are innocent [at least in the eyes of the law].

I cannot think of any other area of violent crime with such an unexplainable disparity - [some] women may enjoy a bit of rough [so I'm told], but men have been getting away with mass rape for years, either that or there are tens of thousands of female liars out there ?

My sister, the cop, has been assigned to the domestic violence unit for years - she tells me that some of the rapists, sorry husbands, use any, and all means to subdugate their terrified spouse [using the kids as pawns if necessary] - I would imagine it would not be too difficult for a clever lawyer to make these women look rather flakey when they have to stand up in front of the beak.

"Devil - I would have thought the "correct" level of convictions simply equates to a prosecution each time a crime has been perpetrated ?"

Really? A "conviction" is when someone is found guilty of the crime for which they are being prosecuted.

I am sure that there are many nasty men out there and I am happy for them to be put away for a very, very long time if convicted, i.e. found guilty.

If you are implying that if a crime is perpetrated, then it should reach court then that is, obviously, correct.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that the police have a psi-squad and they are, unfortunately, unable to bring a prosecution if the victim is not willing to testify.

And therein lies the problem, I am afraid; the victim must be willing to testify. I acknowledge the problems that you have flagged up, but they are unsolveable really (unless you are suggesting a telescreen in every room, 1984 style?).

That's a fair summary and all, but the logic is a bit circular. Why should a victim subject herself (or indeed himself) to the humiliation of reporting it, esp. where perp is unknown, knowing full well there is naff all chance of getting a conviction?

Thanks for the correction Devil - yes, I meant guilt proven, rather than prosecution.

You may be suprised to hear that the rate of rape reporting is actually increasing, while convictions steadily plummet [the so called justice gap] - some 50%-66% of reported cases do not even advance beyond the investigation stage.

There is also a very high likelihood of supporting evidence after rape [86.7%] so perhaps we don't need the telescreen just yet - despite this the probablilty of acquittal, whenever rape is contested, is very high.http://fawcettsociety.org.uk/

What kind or increased rape reporting are we talking about here, though?

Is it more of the 'dark stranger jumps out of bushes and assaults female passerby' type?

Is it 'wife/partner coerced - with or without threat of violence - into sex against will by husband/partner' type?

Or is it 'boozed-up ladette stumbles home the morning after 16 Red Bull and vodkas, confides in female friend she had sex with the office teaboy who's well mingin' in the daylight, and female friend says "'Ere, you was raped, innit.."' type?

Incidentally, Devil - the sexual abuse of children is also fraught with problems when it comes to obtaining unequivocal evidence - do you advocate such a fatalistic approach toward this type of abuse as well ?

Pascal - my point is very simple, in the UK women are extremely unlikley [in statistical terms] to recieve legal remedy whenever they are raped.

Juliam - as you know, in the majority of cases the rapist is known to the victim, alcohol is a significant factor [for both parties] in many cases.You raise the issue of attitudes, this is an important point, for example, one study found 30% of the public thought a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if intoxicated.[same source as above].

Do you remember the excellent "hypotheticals' TV show which dealt with how professional would manage a variety of ethical dilemmas ?

The show about rape included a question to a [real] judge who was asked if he would permit questions about the type of knickers the woman was wearing.

The final question is put to the defence lawyer - She is asked how she might respond when the accused [who has just been aquitted] braggs "the next time I rape a woman I want you to defend me", of course she is bound to look after the interests of her "client" rather than the devastated victim.

Just when you start to think Dave the Dickhead isn't a cunt, he comes out with bobbins like this.

There are very few rapists like the Cambridge Rapist, who wore a leather mask with "Rapist" written on it. Fairly open and shut that one. Most of these alleged rapes occur when a woman and a man know each other, have sex, and the woman then alleges rape, the man agrees sex took place, but says it was with consent. Sort that one out.

If you can't prove something beyond reasonable doubt, you can't convict someone of a serious crime. Or maybe you can, if you are a complete and utter cunt who wants a cheap headline.

Suggest you Google and look at Angry Harry's website for his comments on feminism and the rape/abuse industry. Some women ARE genuine victims and others are liars/fruitcakes looking for compensation or the settling of personal scores using the law. Are there so many female liars? Ask yourself this question--what is their incentive not to lie when her identity is protected while the man is announced as a rape suspect in all the local media whether he is innocent or guilty. Ask yourself what happens to a man wrongly convicted of rape and compare that with what happens to a woman who lies about being a victim. It's only in the last couple of years that female "victims" perjury, which could cost a man 20 years or so in hell, has brought the female liars any jail time at all and even now it usually amount to a few months in a womens open prison if their offence is heinous. Think about the injustice, Gentlemen.

Judging by the attitude of others on here, I am surprised that women do not all go about with chaperones.

The tenor of some comments that I have seen seems to be that all men are rapists or will be rapists. I actually find this incredibly fucking insulting personally, and depressing generally.

I have added an update to the post, from The Reptile, which makes a good point well; you might like to consider it before you call every man around a fucking rapist with an attitude of "god given right to fuck anything that moves".

DK

P.S. A&E,

"Incidentally, Devil - the sexual abuse of children is also fraught with problems when it comes to obtaining unequivocal evidence - do you advocate such a fatalistic approach toward this type of abuse as well ?"

What the fuck difference does it make?

Or are you saying that children are intrinsically more important and valuable than grown women and that I should change my attitude in some way because of it?

Where did you get the "47,000 allegations" bit from? The article quotes 13,721 in 2004-05, rather less than your 47,000.

If you take the article's assertion that this is only 25% of those who are actually assaulted (although I can't find any data to support the "experts" so far), you come up with a figure of about 55,000 but I repeat: if women don't report it, it can never come to court.

Yes, the actual prosecution system is shit but I said that. But, as I would also point out, the fact that state-provided services are utterly crap is something of a theme on this blog, as you may have noticed.

I know it's a crappy situation, but what does one actually do about it?

i think the home office statistic is that 8% of reported rapes are false. I think further that the police/ prosecutor decline to proceed with ~35% of complaints. One can only imagine how problematic the evidence has to be for the police/ prosecutor to be obliged to discontinue a prosecution.

i have a real difficulty with a&e charge nurse saying that all these are rapes. In many cases, the evidence is that the "victim" states that they cannot remember what happened, because they were so drunk; and therefore it must have been rape.

the austin donnellan case is a clear example. The evidence is that the couple were very intimate in public; this clearly isn't evidence of what happened in private. But how can you reliably proceed with a case of rape when it is the "victim's" case that they don't remember anything, and the other witness testimony is consent ? And in this case, though it took a couple of days, the "victim" was able to work herself into a state as well.

Devil - I have come across various figures for prevalence, the Home Office British Crime Survey put the figure at 61,000 [Rape & Sexual Assault of Women: findings from the British Crime Survey].

The Fawcett Society state "at least 47,000 women are raped each year" [link available via google].

Kelly, et al [2005] A gap or chasm ? Attrition in reported rape cases [Home Office Research Study] claim "there is an over estimation of the scale of false allegations by police and prosecutors and subjective judgements are still being made about victims.

I know what I have seen in A&E and this is corroborated time and again by my sisters observations on the domestic violence front.

A percentage of men are sexual opportunists [hang , all men are sexual opportunists, aren't they ?] although only a percentage will go so far as to break the law, perhaps safe in the knowledge that the likelihood of conviction is statistically improbable.

"at least 47,000 women are raped each year"somehow, i cannot imagine the A&E cannot understand the difference between "rape" and "allegation of rape". If they cannot, I will make the allegation that A&E is a murderer; she should then commit herself to a police station, where she should pronounce herself guilty.

Of course, just because a study WITH CAPITAL LETTERS say something, then it must be true. The mere number of rapes reported to police is far too small a number to make enough political impact, so an inflated number is used, with a fudge factor that is at best a guess.

This is a subject on which men and women will never agree. It is an absolute and unquestionable tenet of feminist ideology that 'all men are rapists' - therefore whenever a man is accused of rape he must obviously be guilty, according to this view. At the moment a degree of protection of the innocent exists under law, but as the-Eu-province-formerly-known-as-Britain is now run largely by crazed feminists and their male fellow travellers, it can't be long before the mere accusation of rape will be enough to ruin a man's life, as it already is of course with allegations of child abuse.Why people can't understand the simple principle 'innocent until proven guilty' I just don't know. Oh - actually, yes I do know - left-wing ideology has always preferred to perceive the world as a demonstration of the truth of its theories rather than testing the theories against reality. It's all in Karl Popper, but of course no-one reads him nowadays. As DK so eloquently put it - 'we are all fucked'. Oh well.Mr. Hughes.

lahgbr - the UK is brilliant, according to the courts women are hardly ever raped, and children are not being abused.

My cop-sister says different, so in fact does my mate, the burnt out social worker - as far as I know they hardly ever lie to me, so why should they lie about this ?

Laing was right, the bedroom can be a very dangerous place, and if you want to know how desperate things are are speak to a front line social worker with lots of experience in child protection - or a knowledgeable police officer assigned to domestic violence, or sexual offences.

dear A&E, you are the one who came up with figures which are fabrications and guesswork. Don't get angry if I point this out.

My cop-sister says different, so in fact does my mate, the burnt out social worker - as far as I know they hardly ever lie to me, so why should they lie about this ?this is priceless. apparently your two friends have a built-in ability to detect TRUTH tm, and we can do away with courts, and other such trivialities. Your two friends can detect rapists and child abusers, so thank god for that !

No-one has suggested that there is no rape in the UK; merely that allegations are not necessarily proof of the fact. A point which still seems to elude you, and your two purveyors of TRUTH tm.

Thanks Roger - actually, I have great sympathy for any man falsely accused [of rape].

Do you have any sympathy for 95% of traumatised women who fail to secure a conviction, presumably since most harbour delusions about what constitutes a sexual assualt [if we accept the opinion of most of the commentators here] ?

Anonymous - the sources I mention have been in the trade for many years, both have witnessed the devastating effects of abuse compounded by the near impossibilty of obtaining fair legal remedy - how many cases have you been involved in ?

I have sympathy for any woman who has suffered a REAL sexual or any other type of assault. I have vast anger towards the large crew of lying leftist feminazis and their fellow travellers who demand kangaroo courts to destroy mens lives to satisfy their own twisted hatred. Just look at the proposition being put forward. That is, that there are hundreds or more likely thousands of wicked brutal men out there who are getting away with rape on a daily basis but that there are only a TINY, TINY number of women out there who would even consider lying about being a victim. Sugar and Spice anyone?. There are just as many evil, rotten preditory and worthless women out there as there are men.There are just as many crazy women as there are crazy men. Women have considerable incentive to tell lies both financial and the personal satisfaction of having comprehensivley destroyed a mans life merely by the accusation even if it cannot be proved. It's almost funny but the only men immune to the public shame and disgrace of an accusation ( not to mention loss of job, friends and place in the community) are the real preditory criminals who probably don't work anyway and could not give a shit.Consider the case in the papers only yesterday of the women who "escaped" a jail sentence after making 8 false accusations of rape. Do you think that any man in this country who was caught out on 8 sequential counts of serious perjury ( each of which could have sent the person he was falsely accusing to jail for a substantial chunk of their life) would escape a long custodial sentence?. I don't know the excuse she used but it was probably the standard one--some wicked man abused her when she was a child.

Try READING and ABSORBING the studies she cites, yeah, before you ignorant dickheads spout your mouths off about the lodas of lying, nasty women out there and poor ickle innocent men going through the terrible inconvenience of buying a suit to appear in court...ahhh.Don't give me that "no smoke without fire" shit. Really. The media reports rape only if it can call the victim a lying slut.